Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

PEOPLE vs.

AMODIA
G.R. No. 177356
November 20, 2008

FACTS:

Richard Roda, an Assistant Manager of Nognog Videoke Restaurant, went out of the
restaurant to invite customers but saw seven persons mauling someone. He noticed that three of
the attackers, whom he later identified as accused-appellants Amodia, Marino, and Lo-oc, were
regular customers of their restaurant. Roda did not immediately report the incident because he
was threatened by accused-appellants who were still hanging around the area. A few days later, ,
upon the advice of a person from the La Loma Police Station, Roda went to Camp Karingal in
Quezon City to report what he had witnessed. The RTC found Amodia, Marino and Lo-oc guilty
of the crime of Murder.The CA affirmed the trial court's decision.

they claim that it was improbable that the assailants would hang around within the
area of the crime to drink three rounds of beer instead of immediately fleeing.

ISSUE: Whether or not the non-flight of the assailants signified innocence

RULING: No.

Untenable is accused-appellants' contention that non-flight of the assailants signified


innocence. Unlike flight of an accused, which is competent evidence against the accused as
having a tendency to establish the accused's guilt, non-flight is simply inaction, which may be
due to several factors. It cannot be singularly considered as evidence or as a manifestation
determinative of innocence. Thus, weighed against the positive testimony of the prosecution
eyewitness, accused-appellants' defenses of denial and alibi lose ground.

Also, delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily
impair the credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given. In this case,
the prosecution eyewitness explained that he did not immediately report the incident to the police
because the assailants threatened to hurt him. What made this threat appear so real was the fact
that accused-appellants lingered within the vicinity of the crime for a couple of hours after the
mauling incident. After the authorities had discovered the victim, however, he volunteered to
relate what he had seen. It took him only two days before giving his statement. This delay, if it
can be considered as one, is hardly unreasonable or unjustified under the circumstances.